Navigate:

Opinion Contributor

It's Senate's duty to confirm judges

The author writes that due to Senate inaction, our federal courts are overworked or understaffed. |
AP Photo
Close

Some Republican senators are blocking — or placing holds — on judicial nominations for reasons unrelated to justice, to serve their own political interests. Republican senators are also delaying or blocking nominees who would fill seats in courtrooms so overwhelmed with cases that they are deemed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to be “judicial emergencies.” It is a level of obstruction not seen under any previous president in U.S. history.

Again, numbers tell the story. The glacial pace of judicial confirmations has seen the number of judicial vacancies explode from 55, when Obama took office, to 88 today. By this time in the Bush administration, the Senate had confirmed 40 percent more judges than it has during the Obama administration.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Astonishingly, in the past two months, the Senate has voted on just 11 nominations. The chamber could have easily confirmed judges while awaiting a final debt ceiling deal. Instead Republicans blocked, stalled and delayed.

The Senate has now recessed for a month, yet the work of the courts continues.

When judicial vacancies remain at such record levels, needless delays create a crisis that has drawn concern from all corners — including Chief Justice John Roberts, Attorney General Eric Holder, federal judges around the country and bar associations.

The Senate is failing in one of its key constitutional duties. It is preventing the third branch of government from doing its job — and making it impossible for Americans to have their cases heard in a timely fashion.

The solution is simple. With no Supreme Court nomination battle consuming Washington this fall, there are no excuses. The Senate should vote on these waiting nominees at the earliest possible moment when it returns from its August recess.

It is time for the Senate to do what the Constitution commands — advise and consent to the nomination of qualified judges. The long-term health of the third branch of government depends on it — and so do the American people.

Andrew Blotky is the director of Legal Progress, the legal policy program at the Center for American Progress. Doug Kendall is the president and founder of the Constitutional Accountability Center.

Readers' Comments (12)

The philosophical idea of the framers was that judges should act only as impartial interpreters of the law. They should simply read the law and apply it in the context of the facts of each particular case by and circumstance. Any person of honest charter and with good command of the law can theoretically play this limited role regardless of their political views or party. However starting with the civil rights era, judges refused to restrict themselves to interpretation of law and began "legislating from the bench" regarding many cultural issues. Perhaps the main offences concerned affirmative action and abortion cases. Recently the venue of battle has moved to Gay marriage, the death penalty and the definition of torture. Simply put, when such deep cultural questions are decided by a law court instead of a legislature, the system breaks down. These are questions beyond existing law so deciding them from the bench merely politicizes the courts. The appointment of judges then becomes an intensely political issue because these cases effect the lives of millions of citizens. Each judicial appointment becomes a political battlefield, judges are subjected to intense scrutiny and the normal prosaic functions of the court can no longer be fulfilled.

The Republican strategy is clear...and they've done it before with great success. They'll wait until they get a Republican President, no matter how long it takes and no matter how much damage is done to the judiciary, so that they can get as many conservatives judges nominated as possible. They did exactly this under Clinton...held up nominations until Bush became President, and then rammed through as many of his nominees as they could.

Cry me a river...what do you expect from 2 liberal rodeo clowns. I have 2 words for you...Miguel Estrada...did you whine when Senate DUMBocrats blocked his nomination because they feared he might be the first Hispanic nominated to the SCOTUS? It's this president's duty to stop nominating radical leftist activist candidates for federal judgeships...then maybe he would get a few confirmed.

Yes it is the Republicans blocking the nominations of a Democrat president, just as Democrats blocked Bush's and so on. It's a bipartisan sport and it's not limited to the judiciary. It takes years for a President to get his team in action. It is far past time for BOTH parties to recognise that political differences should not be a basis for obstruction of nominations.

I work in the judicial system and I have yet found any judge unqualified. Republicans want the president to fail therefore leaving the door open for one of them to become president, preferably white male, so they can get back power and ride on Air Force One. Republicans like the idea of being powerful, however, they are clueless on how to govern.

Unlike the past, we are in a global economy now and as the world watched the Debt Ceiling debate, one in which none had ever witnessed with previous U.S. presidents, it became abundantly clear that the current leadership both in the House and the Senate as well as the current declared candidates for 2012, are simply incapable to govern or deal with hard issues.

So as Ben from Politico continues to misinform our country about the President's approval numbers and yet, not mention the current presidential Republican candidate's approval ratings, is telling in itself. To continue to pretend that any of those candidates have a chance to beat President Obama is foolish and even more foolish to believe that our international leaders would be more willing to work with them rather than President Obama, is even more foolish.

The Republican presidential candidates lack the intellect to govern or negotiate (Huntsman may be the exception) and have proven they are anything but honorable by how they continue to disrespect President Obama, his administration and the office of the presidency. That being said, what makes them believe the international community would be willing to work with them?

Ted Kennedy, the amphibian, set the prescident when he made a mockery of professional behavior in the Judge Robert Bork and Judge Clarence Thomas confirmations!

I will stop dragging up the past excuses the very day PRESENTdent Obama stops blaming Bush, OK?

PRESENTdent OBAMA SPENDS HALF HIS TIME BLAMING BUSH! So, for the GOOD OF THE COUNTRY, lets here stipulate; ITS ALL BUSHES' FAULT! Lets take that off Obamas' daily schedule, OK?

Now, with twice as much time to devote to his job, maybe we could expect some improvement!

NOTE TO OBAMA: The "Bosses' Job", if you had ever held one, is to straighten out messes!!!!!!! A CEO of a huge operation has a mess on his desk every morning; That is why the job exists! Can't handle it???